UN: An Increasingly Broad Coalition of Pro-Life Countries Against So-Called “Reproductive and Sexual Rights”

At the 50th plenary meeting on November 20, 2025, during the 80th session of the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, the Member States considered a draft resolution on the rights of the child (A/C.3/80/L.20/Rev.1). In the document, the term “sexual and reproductive health” (SRH) appeared, the meaning of which is not defined in legally binding international treaties. This raised concerns among many national delegations due to its potential impact on the health and education policy directions of the Member States in the context of protecting the rights of the child. At the initiative of Burundi, an amendment was proposed to delete this term.

In the vote on the amendment proposed by Burundi, 48 countries supported its adoption, including the United States and several African as well as predominantly Muslim countries. This coalition has repeatedly emphasized in its statements that removing the ambiguous term “sexual and reproductive health” is necessary to ensure that the resolution will not be interpreted as requiring countries to provide children with access to contraception or abortion without the knowledge and consent of their parents.

Poland, represented by Switzerland along with 45 other countries, voted against the amendment, supporting—together with the majority of EU member states and 93 countries in total—keeping the resolution’s existing wording. This means that the Polish delegation supported keeping the reference to “sexual and reproductive health” in the document.

Although the amendment was ultimately not adopted, the result of the vote and its breakdown indicate a growing consolidation among countries favoring the maintenance of a strict interpretation of international law and clarity in the terminology used. Some national delegations emphasized that protecting the rights of the child requires precise language and respect for the constitutional, cultural, and legal frameworks of individual States.

The representative of Burundi, presenting the amendment, stated that “we note with deep concern the increased proliferation of SRH-related references in these initiatives, mainstreaming sensitive, highly contentious issues such as abortion and sexual education that seeks to focus the resolution beyond its proper scope. This approach is inconsistent with states’ obligation to uphold the right to life of every child and to shield children from the harm of early sexualization by safeguarding their physical integrity, emotional well-being, and age-appropriate development.”

He also added that “previous iterations of this resolution included only a few narrow references to SRH, which were part of a fragile, reluctantly accepted compromise. It never reflected broad consensus. It depended on the understanding that such references would remain strictly limited in number and scope and would be accompanied by essential safeguards. Even then, these references repeatedly prompted explanations of position and disassociations, showing that many delegations still viewed them as problematic.”

For its part, Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union member states, recommended rejecting the amendments, deeming them detrimental to the content of the resolution. The Danish delegation stressed the need to maintain the language used to date, including terms relating to so-called sexual and reproductive health. However, the delegations’ statements revealed a clear divide between the countries calling for a precise interpretation of the terms used in UN resolutions—consistent with the treaties in force and with states’ competencies—and those favoring the retention of the existing wording, even if it is legally ambiguous.

Ultimately, the resolution as a whole was adopted by a majority of 172 votes, with 3 votes against (the United States, Israel, and Argentina) and 3 abstentions. However, the course of the debate and the broad support for amendments removing the imprecise term indicate that a significant group of countries is placing increasing importance on safeguarding the stability of international law, the role of the family, and state sovereignty in the sphere of health and education policy.

In the context of the UN’s work, the result of the vote shows that there is a growing group of states seeking the revision of concepts that lack a clear basis in binding international instruments and are often the subject of interpretive disputes. This outcome is also important for future negotiations on resolutions regarding children, family, education, and health policy.

“The results of the vote on the resolution on the rights of the child clearly show that an increasing number of states recognize the need to precisely define the terms used in United Nations documents. The growing support for the removal of ambiguous and controversial terms confirms that many delegations consider the protection of the family and the paramount role of parents to be key elements of the children’s rights system. It is also a sign that the debate at the UN is moving toward greater respect for state sovereignty and the literal wording of binding international treaties. This is an important step toward a more stable and predictable system of human rights protection,” notes Julia Książek of the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law.